At least, that's the only explanation I can figure for today's lead editorial criticizing Kerry's speech. Yes, they either were higher than a kite while watching it, or they simply didn't watch it at all. Or, I guess there's one more plausible explanation, the Post must have thought that this was BUSH'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH - judging by the things they wished Kerry had done, they must have thought he was running as the Republican candidate.
Case in point. The Post criticizes Kerry for offering "not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein."
Huh? Since when is Kerry supposed to praise President Bush in his acceptance speech? This smacks of the same PC bull that requires every politician who criticizes the war to over-emphasize that THEY DON'T HATE THE TROOPS, REALLY THEY DON'T. Everyone knows that none of us "hate" the troops, it's a red herring, and it's meant to chill criticism. In this case, Kerry is supposed to praise Bush's policies, or else he isn't a friend of democracy? This criticism is simply bizarre.
Second case in point: "Mr. Kerry could have spoken the difficult truth that U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for a long time."
Why the fuck should Kerry hang that albatross around his neck? It's Bush's fault that our troops are in Iraq, not Kerry. And Kerry is supposed to be the one promising they'll be staying a long time? Who said they have to? Since when it is a fact that we MUST keep our troops there a long time? I don't think there's necessarily a national consensus AT ALL on that point. Yet the Post says Kerry MUST say this?
Third case in point: "a President Kerry, too, would face momentous decisions based on inevitably imperfect information, whether about Iran or North Korea or dangers yet to emerge. How would he respond? Will it always be safe to wait?"
Ok, so now Kerry is supposed to go into every detail of how he'd handle a HYPOTHETICAL crisis in Iran or North Korea that doesn't even exist yet? WTF?
Fourth case in point: "His promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs and end dependence on Middle East oil are not grounded in reality."
Why? Why is it not grounded in reality that we need to stop outsourcing jobs and/or being reliant on Middle East oil? Especially on the oil front, it's not grounded in reality that we need to increase our energy independence? Who wrote this Post editorial anyway, Halliburton?
The Post's conclusion: "Mr. Kerry will be judged not in a vacuum but against the record compiled by Mr. Bush. But he will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs."
I watched that speech last night and it was amazing. Feel free to write a letter to the editor telling the Post to go Cheney itself. The days of our kow-towing to the ineptitudes of this supposedly-liberal media are over.
